complete breakdown of scores/level achievement =)
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2001 12:30 pm
Hi all!
<p>
This is my first letter to the forum, so I'll start off by
saying how brilliant this whole concept is - allowing people
to see action replays of arcade games! I myself will be
contributing to the tables soon.
<p>
There are just a few quick comments I'd like to make.
<p>
I'd love to put up my replay of Pacland, but there's a slight
snag. Most of the time, the game runs at full speed (100%), but
occasionly it dips fractionally below the 90% mark. How
elligible will it be if I send up an inp?
I actually have the game for Playstation (it's a perfect port
from the arcade - uses set 2) and have got to round 27, and
I reckon it's only a matter of time before I get a cool score
too, but it's a shame if I can't put the inp up...
<p>
Out of interest, why are there 4 sets of Pacland? Were all
these 4 versions released officially as real arcades in
their time?
<p>
I quote:
<p>
****************************************
Commando: Indefinitely sitting safely behind
bunker and shooting unlimited number of enemies.
****************************************
<p>
The rule is, is that you can't do this too much, otherwise
it will be regarded as cheating. Fair enough, I can see why
this rule was made... but isn't it a bit of a kludge?
Well, I s'pose there's no other way to do it...
<p>
...which leads me onto my next point:
Levels!
<p>
Points are great and all that, but in a way, perhaps
(for some games at least), levels should be more important
than points! In a way of course, they're roughly proportional,
and it would certainly solve the Commando problem once and
for all.
Maybe it would be nice to have two tables - one for highest
scores, and one for furthest levels reached - it would be
a great addition to MARP. Of course, some games are easy
to complete, so what I suggest, is for the easier games -
put the difficulty on 'hard' as the standard. This will keep
the challenge of trying to get further and further
throughout the game. If one (or more than one person) then
completes the game on this 'hard' level, then the thing to
do would be to crank the difficulty up to 'very hard/hardest'
and have the table based on this /new/ level. Old scores
on the easier difficulty levels are still shown, but shown
below the harder difficulty levels.
<p>
An ideal solution for all involved
<p>
Cheers,
<p>
Daniel/Twinbee (dspwhite@email.com)
--
dspwhite@email.com
<p>
This is my first letter to the forum, so I'll start off by
saying how brilliant this whole concept is - allowing people
to see action replays of arcade games! I myself will be
contributing to the tables soon.
<p>
There are just a few quick comments I'd like to make.
<p>
I'd love to put up my replay of Pacland, but there's a slight
snag. Most of the time, the game runs at full speed (100%), but
occasionly it dips fractionally below the 90% mark. How
elligible will it be if I send up an inp?
I actually have the game for Playstation (it's a perfect port
from the arcade - uses set 2) and have got to round 27, and
I reckon it's only a matter of time before I get a cool score
too, but it's a shame if I can't put the inp up...
<p>
Out of interest, why are there 4 sets of Pacland? Were all
these 4 versions released officially as real arcades in
their time?
<p>
I quote:
<p>
****************************************
Commando: Indefinitely sitting safely behind
bunker and shooting unlimited number of enemies.
****************************************
<p>
The rule is, is that you can't do this too much, otherwise
it will be regarded as cheating. Fair enough, I can see why
this rule was made... but isn't it a bit of a kludge?
Well, I s'pose there's no other way to do it...
<p>
...which leads me onto my next point:
Levels!
<p>
Points are great and all that, but in a way, perhaps
(for some games at least), levels should be more important
than points! In a way of course, they're roughly proportional,
and it would certainly solve the Commando problem once and
for all.
Maybe it would be nice to have two tables - one for highest
scores, and one for furthest levels reached - it would be
a great addition to MARP. Of course, some games are easy
to complete, so what I suggest, is for the easier games -
put the difficulty on 'hard' as the standard. This will keep
the challenge of trying to get further and further
throughout the game. If one (or more than one person) then
completes the game on this 'hard' level, then the thing to
do would be to crank the difficulty up to 'very hard/hardest'
and have the table based on this /new/ level. Old scores
on the easier difficulty levels are still shown, but shown
below the harder difficulty levels.
<p>
An ideal solution for all involved

<p>
Cheers,
<p>
Daniel/Twinbee (dspwhite@email.com)
--
dspwhite@email.com